The Vector: Your thoughts

[GoSlash27]

2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

I think Squad needs to introduce 1.875m SRBs to match the shuttle. That way they can nerf the Vector enough to make it act more like a SSME rather than fill the role that its SRBs do in RL.

A 1.875m to 1.25/2.5m adaptor would need to go with this but that is only 3 parts total added.

The Vector can be brought down to about 700 thrust while the boosters have about 1.5k thrust each. Tapering thrust curve would be nice for the SRBs as well.

 

Or for that matter, they could offer the 1.875m SRB with a 1.25m node on top and not worry about the adapters for now if it's a headache. We're really just asking for it as a radial- mount engine anyway.

Best,

-Slashy

[Red Iron Crown]

Would be better IMO to implement a 2.5m booster, all the accessory parts already exist. Starting a new radial size would inevitably result in calls for more parts in that size.

[Glaran K'erman]

15 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Would be better IMO to implement a 2.5m booster, all the accessory parts already exist. Starting a new radial size would inevitably result in calls for more parts in that size.

While I would like to see 1.875 boosters, I agree it's unlikely to happen alongside a 1.875m (semi) general part release. Which I also think is highly unlikely. 2.5m boosters seem like a logical next step for me. As for the Vector, I honestly couldn't care less, I haven't used it at all but a handful of times. I am too lazy and didn't read the previous pages but my gripes are too powerful/expensive. 

 

Edit: Went back and read a bit, just want to note my happiness with surface attachment. My most enjoyable Vector craft was a VTOL.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Glaran K'erman

[Psycho_zs]

Another analogy with things IRL (not going into details about fuels, volumes, etc., because it is pointless, but into concepts):

SLS uses 4 SSMEs on main lifter stage, and that is a pretty heavy rocket. These engines are up to task. Mammoth is influenced directly by SLS lifter cluster, Vector is basically Mammoth/4. Not many people seem to complain that Mammoth is overpowered. So Vector stats are fine.

Crossections of engines do not matter, because they're just crossections of engines' tankbutts. And from what I heard recently, devs have some promising thoughts about future of tankbutts...

My only complaint about Vector is the lack of guts on the model.

[regex]

1 hour ago, Psycho_zs said:

SLS uses 4 SSMEs on main lifter stage, and that is a pretty heavy rocket. These engines are up to task. Mammoth is influenced directly by SLS lifter cluster, Vector is basically Mammoth/4. Not many people seem to complain that Mammoth is overpowered. So Vector stats are fine.

SLS is essentially the STS with four engines and without the ~dead weight~ of the orbiter.  It also uses SRBs to help its SSMEs up to optimum operating altitude, although for smaller payloads it could possibly do without (although why the hell you'd pay for an SLS for less than optimum payload is beyond me).  And, again, the Vector is not based on the SSME, it's based on the RD-191, despite how it looks and what its name is in the config files.  Because we don't have cryogenic fuels in KSP.

Interestingly, this also makes the Mammoth a sort of analogue for an RD-171...

[blowfish]

For everyone worried about attachment sizes, I'd like to remind you that this is something that Porkjet is quite possibly changing in a very major way (as per dev notes).

[monophonic]

5 hours ago, GoSlash27 said:

Or for that matter, they could offer the 1.875m SRB with a 1.25m node on top and not worry about the adapters for now if it's a headache. We're really just asking for it as a radial- mount engine anyway.

Best,

-Slashy

Extending on this idea, remember the STS SRB has an outwards tapering skirt down around the nozzle. I haven't checked the blueprints but I think that would be close enough to make a 2.5m node at the bottom a good match. If not exact, add a shroud to cover the difference when something is attached to the bottom node. Top that with a nose cone to match the top node. I think the Aerodynamic Nose Cone is overdue for a make over anyway so redesign that to keep the part list size manageable.

There you have it then, a 1.875 meter SRB without need to introduce any new node sizes. The skirt limits a bit how one can place it, of course. You can fit it under the core like the Space Shuttle did it, or finally have a real reason to use the wide TT-70 radial decoupler.

[regex]

This was my solution to the shuttle-style "Vector is OP" argument.

Slapped that together this morning, takes an orange tank to orbit.

[GoSlash27]

3 hours ago, regex said:

This was my solution to the shuttle-style "Vector is OP" argument.

Slapped that together this morning, takes an orange tank to orbit.

Yees... except people would like to be able to take all of these shuttle parts and make a shuttle out of them that is proportional to an *actual* shuttle. That rules out using 4 undersized SRBs.

Best,

-Slashy

[regex]

2 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Yees... except people would like to be able to take all of these shuttle parts and make a shuttle out of them that is proportional to an *actual* shuttle. That rules out using 4 undersized SRBs.

Well, if you want three engines just thrust limit them, I don't see the problem.  SRBs are a different topic altogether.

[GoSlash27]

41 minutes ago, regex said:

Well, if you want three engines just thrust limit them, I don't see the problem.  SRBs are a different topic altogether.

 regex,

 I believe we've already covered this. You can thrust- limit an engine, but you cannot mass- limit or cost- limit it. This is a 4 tonne $18,000 engine being used in an application where a 3 tonne $5,300 engine would suffice. *Especially* if we have access to correctly- scaled SRBs. With that, your "knocked- together" shuttle would have had 3 SSMEs and 2 boosters instead of 2 SSMEs and 4 boosters.

And I'm not proposing taking this engine away from you. I want to keep it exactly the way it is. I'm proposing that we remove the butt plate from the Skipper, create a new bottom-end 2.5m booster engine to fill the gap between the Reliant and the Skipper,  and a properly sized SRB for this job.

Best,

-Slashy

 

[regex]

44 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

This is a 4 tonne $18,000 engine being used in an application where a 3 tonne $5,300 engine would suffice.

Skipper doesn't have the gimballing range that makes the Vector so good.

Quote

With that, your "knocked- together" shuttle would have had 3 SSMEs and 2 boosters instead of 2 SSMEs and 4 boosters.

Why would I want my shuttle to look different?  I think it's perfectly fine for a lazy Saturday morning, bone-stock, "orange tank is the gold standard" build.  I might even get ambitious and build a station using it. If I wanted a shuttle that looked like the STS I'd pick up Component Space Shuttle for my RO install and do it right.

Quote

And I'm not proposing taking this engine away from you.

Not sure how you could take the engine away from me...

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "We need better SRBs for our shuttles"?

[Snark]

12 hours ago, Glaran K'erman said:

As for the Vector, I honestly couldn't care less, I haven't used it at all but a handful of times. I am too lazy and didn't read the previous pages but my gripes are too powerful/expensive.

Yeah, I had that same reaction.  So I went and modded it from something-I-will-never-ever-use-so-it's-just-useless-clutter-to-me, into a rocket (not shuttle or spaceplane) engine that fills a useful niche without being overpowered.

I've been pretty happy with it-- I've been using it long enough now to have opportunities to put it on several different kind of craft, and I'm pretty happy with the rebalancing.

Anyway, here's the mod if you're interested.  (A bit of an overstatement to call it a "mod", really just a snippet of ModuleManager config.)

[GoSlash27]

1 hour ago, regex said:

Skipper doesn't have the gimballing range that makes the Vector so good.

That's true. It doesn't, but there's no reason why it couldn't.

1 hour ago, regex said:

Why would I want my shuttle to look different?  I think it's perfectly fine for a lazy Saturday morning, bone-stock, "orange tank is the gold standard" build.

Nobody's asking about how *you* want *your" shuttles to look. The issue is whether other people are satisfied with what you have created from stock parts. Clearly a "shuttle replica" with 2 engines, 4 undersized boosters, and a skinny tank isn't what they have in mind.

 

1 hour ago, regex said:

 If I wanted a shuttle that looked like the STS I'd pick up Component Space Shuttle for my RO install and do it right.

"Get a mod" is not an acceptable solution for a fundamental flaw in the core game. If they were to nerf the Rhino so it no longer allows you to use it as a mondo upper stage, would *you* be satisfied with "get a mod"? Don't be that guy.

1 hour ago, regex said:

Perhaps this thread should be renamed "We need better SRBs for our shuttles"?

Perhaps it should be. That's at the heart of the issue.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited January 17, 2016 by GoSlash27

[regex]

1 hour ago, GoSlash27 said:

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2016 by regex

[FungusForge]

Oddly enough, I actually think the Badger engine from Ven's Stock Revamp (which was exactly the same thing, just before SQUAD released the Vector) was more balanced. Both the Badger and the Vector were built so players would still favor the Mammoth over the the smaller, singular KS-25. However the Badger more heavily favored the Mammoth by having 800 thrust, versus the Vector's 900.

However if this is a question pertaining to whether or not it's a balanced 1.25m engine then it will be a resounding yes. Why? Its very dang late in the tech tree. Late enough that by the time you get it you are on 3.75m rockets and possibly even SSTOs. You've spent the insane amount of money to upgrade the R&D as well. No one said the Mammoth or the liquid fuel booster was OP for using such tiny nozzles, and so many were annoyed that a stand-alone KS-25 wasn't available. So why, now that the singular KS-25 has been released, that its OP, despite (albeit minutely) still favoring the use of the Mammoth and that liquid fuel booster I never use. Just because you can make your 1.25m probe launcher that struggled with take-off, go super-sonic when you switch the Swivel with a Vector? Of course it will. That's like saying the Skipper or Mainsail is OP because you strapped it to the ass of a 1.25m tin can.

/rant

Edited January 17, 2016 by FungusForge

[Snark]

10 hours ago, FungusForge said:

No one said the Mammoth or the liquid fuel booster was OP for using such tiny nozzles, and so many were annoyed that a stand-alone KS-25 wasn't available. So why ... its OP ...

Because it's not about the nozzles (that's just eye candy, an effect of the artist).  It's about the stack size.

The Vector's "thrust density" (amount of thrust per stack area) is insanely higher than any other engine in the game, including the Mammoth.  It has fully 1/4 the thrust of a Mammoth, despite having only 1/9 the area.  It's far, far more powerful tech than the Mammoth.

If they had given it a vacuum thrust of, say, 450 kN instead of 1000, then it would make a lot more sense to me.  That would give it the same thrust density as the Mammoth, while still being much better than the Swivel and its ilk.  Give me a Vector with about 45% of its stock thrust, and I will cheerfully hold its hat and cheer it onwards to glory.

Note that I'm not trying to persuade you (or anyone else) that it's overpowered (just as there's zero chance that anyone could persuade me that it's not)... just explaining why some folks find it overpowered. 

10 hours ago, FungusForge said:

That's like saying the Skipper or Mainsail is OP because you strapped it to the ass of a 1.25m tin can.

Except that those are 2.5m engines.  I wouldn't have this gripe with the Vector if it had a 2.5m form factor.  Not that I'm suggesting "make it fatter"-- I think it's a cool engine and it's nice to have something new in the 1.25m size to play with.  And I'm fine with the idea that it's high tech, and all the other 1.25m engines are really low tech, so it's better than them.  What I'm not fine with is that it's way, way, insanely-more-than-twice-as-good as any other engine in the game, including the Mammoth which is at the top of the tech tree.

[GoSlash27]

Snark,

 I understand where you're coming from, but that's really just an illusion. Yes, the thrust-to-surface area is radically high, but the thrust to volume/thrust to weight is not. You have to keep in mind that the "engine" is not only what you can see, The bulk of it's innards is in a long skinny volume inside the parent part.

You can stack more of them under a given fuel tank without overlap, but that doesn't actually do a whole lot for you as a practical matter.

 You can fit one on a 1.25m tank, but you can't make a practical rocket that way (although it is hilarious to try).

 You can fit 2 under 2.5m tank, but all you'd manage to create is a ridiculously- expensive Twin Boar.

 You can fit up to 7 under a Kerbodyne tank and actually create something useful, but it's cost makes it a dubious choice. 75% more thrust and weight in the same form factor, but over 3 times the cost.

 "Thrust density" is an excellent way to describe the perception, but "thrust density" doesn't really help in most cases. Certainly not enough in any case to regard it as "overpowered".

 Best,

-Slashy

[r_rolo1]

Well, I think I'm with regex on this. IMHO the Vector itself is not that OP as that, but the fact is that the Vector as it is makes both the other 1,25m attachable engines look bad and highlights the very old deficiency KSP has in terms of Solid fuel rockets, both in terms of size ( we have only 1,25m Solid fuel engines ) and of ability ( one thing that baffles me after all this years is the lack of a single Solid Fuel engine that can do thrust vectoring, something that predates the Munar landings IIRC ), but those are another issues, and if we measure by actual performance the Vector is not that diferent from a Mainsail of a Skipper...

[Snark]

23 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

Snark,

 I understand where you're coming from, but that's really just an illusion. Yes, the thrust-to-surface area is radically high, but the thrust to volume/thrust to weight is not.

Yes, I have no beefs with its TWR.  It has the same TWR as the Mammoth, that's perfectly fine.  It's the thrust per area that bugs me.  I don't like having something that puts 1000 kN on a 1.25m stack.  To me, that's stupidly overpowered.  Clearly, Squad thinks so too, which is why they gave it such an insanely high price tag to try to compensate.  Unfortunately, that's a terrible way to compensate, because it just changes it from "overpowered" to "unusable" for anyone who's not primarily a spaceplane person (which lots of us aren't).

Scale down both its thrust and its weight to about 45% of its stock value, and I'm happy.

23 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

You have to keep in mind that the "engine" is not only what you can see, The bulk of it's innards is in a long skinny volume inside the parent part.

Point well taken, if I were talking about "physical reality" and "what does NASA really build" and all that sort of thing.  But I'm not.  I'm talking about game balance.  So this sort of argument is at cross-purposes to my objections.

23 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

You can stack more of them under a given fuel tank without overlap, but that doesn't actually do a whole lot for you as a practical matter.

In which case, it would be useless for me, so I would never ever use this engine for that.

23 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

You can fit one on a 1.25m tank, but you can't make a practical rocket that way (although it is hilarious to try).

In which case, it would be useless for me, so I would never ever use this engine for that.

23 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

You can fit 2 under 2.5m tank, but all you'd manage to create is a ridiculously- expensive Twin Boar.

In which case, it would be useless for me, so I would never ever use this engine for that.

23 minutes ago, GoSlash27 said:

You can fit up to 7 under a Kerbodyne tank and actually create something useful, but it's cost makes it a dubious choice. 75% more thrust and weight in the same form factor, but over 3 times the cost.

In which case, it would be useless for me, so I would never ever use this engine for that.

...Which are all excellent points, and are all points that have occurred to me, and are all reinforcing my dislike of this engine's current stats.  It's simultaneously overpowered in some ways, underpowered in others, making it both a travesty and a white elephant at the same time.  It's good for exactly one thing, and that's for people who want to make a space shuttle replica that looks exactly like the actual space shuttle right down to the number of engines on it, which bugs me because, first, it's useless clutter for the very large number of KSP players who never mess with shuttles, and second, I like KSP to be Lego-style where things can be used for multiple-purposes, and specialized boutique parts with only one narrow application feel (to me) to be counter to that philosophy.

I wouldn't make such a big deal out of it, except for the fact that KSP has been utterly neglecting actual rocket ships for the past half-a-dozen patches, while they've piled goodies upon goodies for coddled spaceplanes.  Would really, really like to have a rocket part, even just one, and the Vector had the potential to be that, and it ain't, so I'm bitter about it. 

It's why I modded the Vector into something I like better.  Basically, just take the Mammoth's stats and scale them down by 1/9, and give it gimbaling behavior similar to other rocket engines.  It makes for an engine that is a great addition to the rocket repertoire and fills a niche that needed filling.  I love flying with it.

Look, I'm not trying to convince anybody that I'm right or that anybody else is wrong.  There are plenty of folks out there who like space shuttles, and I'm sure it's great for that.  But the Vector leaves a lot of us out in the cold.  I know I'm not the only person who feels this way, because a couple of thousand people have downloaded the above-linked mod.  Yes, as a percentage of the overal KSP population, that's pretty small, which is why I'm not advocating "we need to change the Vector's behavior in stock."    Just "casting my vote," as it were.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Snark

[GoSlash27]

Snark,

 I do see where you're coming from. I'm a spaceplane guy myself, and I heartily agree that there has been too much emphasis on airplanes/ spaceplanes and not enough emphasis on rockets.

 That said, the Vector is not "overpowered" by any definition (except, perversely, by it's intended function; it's heavier and more powerful than it needs to be as a SSME). It does not obviate any other engine in the game, and it is not so powerful as to be useless, even in pure rocket designs.

 If you use it as a mid- range 2.5m engine, it's just fine. If you use it as a SSTO booster, it's excellent... so long as you bring it home.

Best,

-Slashy

[Tweeker]

On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 6:27 AM, GoSlash27 said:

I disagree. It is a 2.5m engine in all respects except the absence of a 2.5m butt plate, which is completely superfluous.
 If you simply *must* have a 2.5m butt plate on it in order to remind yourself that it's not actually a 1.25m engine, there is a simple fix:

Now it's a 2.5m engine. Problem solved.

 

 It's form does follow it's function. It's function is to be a SSME.

If it did not follow this form, it would be unable to perform it's function.

Best,
-Slashy

     If it was a truly SSME it would have far less thrust, and function as a sustainer, instead it is the primary source of thrust, the lifter. If it's function is to be the  primary lifer then it's form should reflect that, not appear to be a sustainer.

    So you have a fundamental mis-match, you said yourself the Vector functions as a 2.5m engine. But instead of having this form, it is given the appearance of a SSME, so you can have a shuttle that looks realistic. As a result you get an engine that is unbalanced. You are band-aiding the fact that the SRBs are undersized in both function and form by increasing the SSME's  function, but not it's form. That is not a balanced equation.

[kujuman]

I think worrying about the Vector as good for exactly one role is both (1) short-sighted and (2) really focused on one part rather than the philosophy behind it.

(1) Saying the Vector is only good as a shuttle engine discounts both the idea that good shuttles/spaceplanes can be vastly different in form and function from the STS (so yeah, even if the Vector only makes sense in career for recoverable spacecraft, that doesn't mean it's only good as an STS clone) and that there are other realistic applications for the engine. Permanent space use makes a lot of sense for the Vector--as a landing engine, it has good gimbal for control and a relatively low profile (plus a generous crash tolerance), so it can better fit under the landing legs we have. Stick it on a fuel ship from a moon surface where you're mining to an orbital fuel depot, why not. (I also use them sparingly on space stations because of the gimbal meaning that I can do burns more easily if there are ships attached.)

(2) Even if one thinks the Vector is only good for an STS clone, most of the other parts in the game could also be viewed as having only one purpose/ill-suited for balance reasons; the Cupola is ridiculously massive and really has the traits that it has a cool IVA and overall look; the Mk2 Lander can is also massive/kerbal; the Stayputnik has an odd form-factor and no SAS nor reaction wheels (it's a decent back-up for normally crewed ships, and sufficient for rover use); the Mk3 engine mount is pretty single-use; the NERVA is pretty single-use; the batteries all have the same eC/mass, but the costs are not equal per eC--why*?; the ladders aren't at all balanced for length/cost/mass; the whole line of Big-S aero surfaces are just good for STS clones; oh, I'll just stop there. Why gang up on only the Vector when there are plenty of other balance tweaks a lot of people would see as useful?

My point is, the Vector, along with most parts in the game, has a job it does well that isn't easy to capture just based on TWR or Isp or cost/Thrust or form factor. The Vector isn't always the right choice, but it's not always the wrong choice, so that means it's not terribly unbalanced. Part of the reason I like the Vector on my rockets in career is just that it looks pretty cool to me, and since my Funds can only be spent on my rockets, I'll spend some for aesthetic reasons.

*some of it is heat tolerance, but it's mostly paying more to reduce part count/get a different form factor

 

 

[blowfish]

2 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

     If it was a truly SSME it would have far less thrust, and function as a sustainer, instead it is the primary source of thrust, the lifter. If it's function is to be the  primary lifer then it's form should reflect that, not appear to be a sustainer.

The lifter vs sustainer distinction is more about I_sp than thrust.  You could put a massive nozzle on an F-1 and that would increase the vacuum thrust, while making it basically useless at sea level.

Personally I don't give a flying frak about attachment sizes - if anything, more flexibility is better.  I don't see a use case where you'd actually want to put a single vector on a 1.25m stack, so why argue about it?  And to reiterate, Porkjet's current work may render the attachment size distinction obsolete anyway.

[GoSlash27]

9 minutes ago, Tweeker said:

     If it was a truly SSME it would have far less thrust, and function as a sustainer, instead it is the primary source of thrust, the lifter. If it's function is to be the  primary lifer then it's form should reflect that, not appear to be a sustainer.

    So you have a fundamental mis-match, you said yourself the Vector functions as a 2.5m engine. But instead of having this form, it is given the appearance of a SSME, so you can have a shuttle that looks realistic. As a result you get an engine that is unbalanced. You are band-aiding the fact that the SRBs are undersized in both function and form by increasing the SSME's  function, but not it's form. That is not a balanced equation.

Tweeker,

 I agree with all of this, but remember that *I* am not the one who designed it.

 If it was up to me, I would've given it specs to match the current Skipper, reshuffled the current 2.5m engines to fill the gap, and created a proper STS booster.

Best,

-Slashy